2015–2016 Programmatic Profile and Educational …...This is the third annual report on the operation of Rocketship Southside Community Prep (RSCP), a City of Milwaukee charter school.1

Rocketship Southside Community Prep

2015–2016 Programmatic Profile and Educational Performance Report Date: October 2016

© 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. i

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

II. PROGRAMMATIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................................................... 2 A. School Management and Board of Directors ................................................................................... 2 B. Educational Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3

1. Philosophy (Mission) ................................................................................................................. 3 2. Educational Programs and Curriculum .............................................................................. 3

C. Student Population ................................................................................................................................... 5 D. School Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Areas of Instruction ................................................................................................................... 6 2. Classrooms .................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Teacher Information .................................................................................................................. 7 4. Hours of Instruction/School Calendar ............................................................................. 10 5. Parent and Family Involvement ......................................................................................... 10 6. Waiting List ................................................................................................................................ 11 7. Disciplinary Policy ................................................................................................................... 11 8. Activities for Continuous School Improvement ........................................................... 13 9. Fifth-Grade Graduation and Middle School Guidance Information ..................... 14

III. EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................................................... 15

A. Attendance ................................................................................................................................................ 15 B. Parent Participation ................................................................................................................................ 15 C. Special Education Needs ...................................................................................................................... 16 D. Local Measures of Educational Performance ................................................................................ 16

1. Reading and Math Progress for K4 Using CPAA ........................................................... 17 a. Reading ....................................................................................................................... 17 b. Math ............................................................................................................................. 17

2. Reading and Math Progress for K5 Through Fifth Graders Using MAP Target RIT Scores ..................................................................................................................... 18 a. Reading ....................................................................................................................... 18 b. Math ............................................................................................................................. 19

3. Writing ......................................................................................................................................... 19 4. IEP Progress for Special Education Students ................................................................. 20

E. External Standardized Measures of Educational Performance............................................... 20 1. PALS ............................................................................................................................................. 21

a. PALS-PreK ................................................................................................................... 22 b. PALS-K and PALS 1–3 ............................................................................................. 23

2. Wisconsin Forward Exam for Third Through Eighth Graders .................................. 26 F. Multiple-Year Student Progress ......................................................................................................... 28

1. Second-Grade Performance Based on PALS .................................................................. 29 G. CSRC School Scorecard ......................................................................................................................... 29 H. DPI School Report Card ......................................................................................................................... 31 I. Parent/Teacher/Student/Board Satisfaction Regarding Student Academic Progress ... 31


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 32 APPENDICES Appendix A: Contract Compliance Chart Appendix B: Student Learning Memorandum Appendix C: Trend Information Appendix D: CSRC 2015–16 School Scorecard Appendix E: Teacher Interview Results Appendix F: Parent Survey Results Appendix G: Student Survey Results Appendix H: Board Interview Results This report includes text from Rocketship Southside Community Prep student/parent handbook and/or staff handbook. CRC obtained permission from the school to use this text for the purposes of this report.

i © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for

Rocketship Southside Community Prep 2015–16

This is the third annual report on the operation of Rocketship Southside Community Prep (RSCP), a City of Milwaukee charter school.1 It is the result of intensive work undertaken by the City of Milwaukee Charter School Review Committee (CSRC), RSCP staff, and the NCCD Children’s Research Center (CRC). Based on the information gathered and discussed in the attached report, CRC has determined the following findings. I. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SUMMARY For the 2015–16 academic year, RSCP met all but one of its education-related contract provisions.2 See Appendix A for an outline of specific contract provision compliance information, page references, and a description of whether each provision was met. II. EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE A. Local Measures 1. Primary Measures of Academic Progress The CSRC requires the school to track student progress in reading, writing, math, and special education throughout the year to identify students in need of additional help and to assist teachers in developing strategies to improve the academic performance of all students. This year, RSCP’s local measures of academic progress resulted in the following. Reading

Of 66 K4 students, 57 (86.4%) achieved a scale score of 62 or higher on their spring Children’s Progress Academic Assessment (CPAA) for reading. The school’s goal was 90.0%.

Of 319 K5 through fifth graders, 267 (83.7%) met their target Rasch unit (RIT) score on the spring reading test. The school’s goal was 65.0%.

1 The City of Milwaukee Common Council chartered 10 schools in the 2015–16 academic year. 2 One teacher did not hold a Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction license or permit.

ii © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Math

Of 66 K4 students, 59 (89.4%) achieved a scale score of 62 or higher on their spring CPAA for math. The school’s goal was 90.0%.

Of 319 K5 through fifth graders, 221 (69.3%) met their target RIT score on the spring math test. The school’s goal was 65.0%.

Writing

» Of 232 K5 through fifth-grade students with fall and spring writing samples, 198 (85.3%) increased their writing score by five or more on the spring writing sample. The school’s goal was 75.0%.

Special Education

» Of 33 students who received special education services for a full year at RSCP, 29 (87.9%) met one or more of their individualized education program goals. The school’s goal was 80.0%.

2. Secondary Measures of Academic Progress To meet City of Milwaukee requirements, RSCP identified measurable education-related outcomes in attendance, parental involvement, and special education records. Results are described below.

Average student attendance was 92.1%. The school’s goal was 95.0%. Parents of 359 (88.2%) of 407 students attended at least two of three family-teacher

conferences. The school’s goal was 100.0%. RSCP developed and maintained records for all special education students.

B. Year-to-Year Academic Achievement on Standardized Tests RSCP administered all required standardized tests noted in their contract with the City of Milwaukee. However, data regarding year-to-year academic achievement for fourth- and fifth-grade students on Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) standardized tests are not available this year due to the discontinuance of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), as well as the first year of application of the Wisconsin Forward Exam to third through eighth graders. One year-to-year measure that can be reported is the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) reading benchmark assessment for second graders. On that assessment, 100.0% of the second graders who were at or above the benchmarks at the end of first grade (spring of 2015) remained at or above the benchmark in the spring of 2016.

iii © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

C. School Scorecard RSCP scored 83.8% (B) this year, which places the school at the high performing/exemplary level. III. SURVEY/INTERVIEW RESULTS Every other year, CRC conducts parent surveys and interviews board members, teachers, and students to obtain feedback on their perceptions about the school. This year, parents and students were offered the ability to complete their surveys online. Teachers and board members were interviewed personally.

A total of 215 parent surveys, representing 211 (63.9%) of 330 families, were completed. » Almost all (94.0%) parents would recommend this school to other parents.

» A total of 94% of parents rated the school’s overall contribution to their child’s

learning as “excellent” or “good.”

All three RSCP board members participated in interviews. » All three rated the school as “good” or “excellent” overall.

» The main suggestion made by board members for improving the school was

to increase financial resources for the school.

Ten instructional staff members were interviewed, with the following key results. » School climate opinions indicated that:

Nine of the 10 teachers indicated that adults in the school respect

students and their different points of view;

Eight agreed that staff typically work well with one another (two were neutral on the topic); and

Nine agreed that all families are encouraged to become involved in school.

» Regarding overall school performance: All 10 teachers indicated the administrative leadership, educational

methodology/curriculum approach, and general school atmosphere as very important reasons for continuing to teach at RSCP; and

iv © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Primarily “good” or “excellent” ratings were given for student-teacher ratio, individual teacher performance, and progress toward becoming a high-performing school.

» Regarding discipline, seven teachers indicated that the school’s adherence to discipline policy was “excellent” (two) or “good” (five).

» Parent involvement was rated as “excellent” or “good” by nine teachers.

Most of the 25 fifth-grade students who completed surveys indicated that: » They had improved their reading and math abilities;

» The school had afterschool activities; and

» They felt that the marks they received on their classwork, homework, and

report cards were fair. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT The school fully addressed the recommendations for school improvement stated in the 2014–15 programmatic profile and educational performance report. Based on results in this report and consultation with school staff, CRC recommends that the school continue a focused school improvement plan by engaging in the following activities for the 2016–17 academic year.

Continue small-group instruction for reading and math, including tutoring and use of guided reading for small reading groups.

Continue to implement RtI and tutoring for the lowest-achieving students.

Enhance the social-emotional learning curriculum by adding “community circles” at the beginning of every class to help increase communication throughout the school (at the student level, between students and staff, between staff members, and with families).

V. RECOMMENDATION FOR ONGOING MONITORING AND CHARTER RENEWAL Based on the contract compliance and scorecard measures for this third year of operation as a City of Milwaukee charter school, CRC recommends that RSCP continue to receive regular, annual academic monitoring.

1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

I. INTRODUCTION This is the third annual program monitoring report to address educational outcomes for

Rocketship Southside Community Prep (RSCP), one of 10 schools chartered by the City of Milwaukee

for the academic year 2015–16. This report focuses on the educational component of the monitoring

program undertaken by the City of Milwaukee Charter School Review Committee (CSRC) and was

prepared as a result of a contract between the CSRC and the NCCD Children’s Research Center (CRC).3

The following process was used to gather the information in this report.

In September 2014, CRC staff visited the school to conduct a structured interview with

the RSCP leadership team, including the school’s principal; the vice president of growth, development, and policy for Rocketship Education; the senior manager of analytics; and the data and student information analyst.

CRC staff assisted the school in developing its student learning memo. Additional site visits were made during the school year to observe classroom activities,

student-teacher interactions, parent-staff exchanges, and overall school operations. At the end of the school year, a structured interview was conducted with the school’s

principal to review the year and develop initial recommendations for school improvement.

CRC staff read case files for selected special education students to ensure that

individualized education programs (IEPs) were up to date. CRC staff verified the licenses or permits of the instructional staff using the Wisconsin

Department of Public Instruction (DPI) website license search function. CRC staff, along with the CSRC chair, attended a meeting of the school’s board of

directors to improve communications regarding the roles of the CSRC and CRC and expectations regarding board member involvement.

CRC staff interviewed teachers and other instructional staff at the school using a

structured interview guide. All members of the school’s board of directors were contacted for interviews, which

were conducted using a structured guide.

3 CRC is a nonprofit social science research organization and a center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.


CRC conducted a survey of parents of all students enrolled in the school. The survey was offered in paper form or online. CRC attempted at least two follow up phone contacts for parents who did not submit a survey.

CRC conducted an online survey of fifth-grade students. CRC staff analyzed all of the interview and survey data for inclusion in this report. The school provided electronic and paper copies of data to CRC staff, who compiled

and analyzed the data and produced this report. II. PROGRAMMATIC PROFILE Rocketship Southside Community Prep

3003 W. Cleveland Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53215 School Phone: (414) 455-3539 Website: http://www.rsed.org/milwaukee1/index.cfm Principal for 2015–16: Rodney Link RSCP is located on the near-south side of the City of Milwaukee and is the first school in

Wisconsin to be operated in partnership with Rocketship Education, a California nonprofit public

benefit corporation.

A. School Management and Board of Directors

RSCP is governed locally by the board of directors of Rocketship Education Wisconsin. During

the 2015–16 school year, three individuals who are civic and business leaders with various areas of

expertise served as board members. The board’s role is to manage the affairs of the corporation.4 The

school’s leadership team during the 2015–16 school year included a principal, two assistant principals,

4 From RSCP’s Appendix A to its proposal to the City of Milwaukee.


a business operations manager, and an office manager.5 Rocketship Education provides administrative

support to the Wisconsin school, including a director of schools and a director of analysts. 6

B. Educational Methodology 1. Philosophy (Mission)

The mission of RSCP is to “eliminate the achievement gap by bringing students to grade level

in literacy and math by second grade and graduating students at or above grade level in fifth grade.”

The school’s vision statement explains that RSCP seeks to create a future in which thousands of

children from Milwaukee graduate from four-year colleges and come back to their communities to

eradicate the last traces of the achievement gap.

2. Educational Programs and Curriculum7

RSCP serves students in K4 through fifth grades. RSCP believes that an educated person in the

21st century should possess certain academic skills, namely critical thinking, problem solving, and

metacognition as well as life skills and a commitment to learning.8 The school’s philosophy includes

the idea that learning best occurs when students are taught a comprehensive curriculum through

innovative instructional design. The culture of the school includes supporting a strong relationship

with parents, a school-wide expectation of high achievement, and teachers who are subject-matter

5 Information retrieved from www.rsed.org/milwaukee1/Staff.cfm. 6 Information provided at the fall of 2015 administrative interview. 7 Information taken from the RSCP charter application; interviews with the administrative team; and the 2015–16 RSCP Student/Parent Handbook, http://www.rsed.org/milwaukee1/documents/ParentHandBook_RSCP_15-16-English.pdf. 8 Metacognition is the ability and disposition to explore the thinking and learning process, explain how and why a particular strategy was chosen, and explain the rationale behind a particular viewpoint, including supporting one’s claims with evidence.


specialists and highly motivated within a culture of caring. The curriculum is individualized to meet

student needs, and students have extra time to practice in the school’s learning lab.

The RSCP model is a full Response to Intervention (RtI) model, providing three tiers of

intervention for students in need of additional assistance. Students are identified by a variety of

assessments. The assessments typically given three times during the academic year are published by

the Northwest Evaluation Association and include the Children’s Progress Academic Assessment

(CPAA) in math and literacy for K4 students; the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments in

reading and math for K5 through fifth grades. Four times a year, the school also administers the

Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP), a developmental reading assessment developed

by the University of Chicago for K4 through fifth-grade students.

The first tier of intervention occurs in the classroom (including guided reading groups). The

second tier of intervention is additional individualized instruction provided in the computer center or

learning lab by a tutor who works daily in small-group intervention with groups of students with

similar needs. The third tier of intervention is a referral to the student services team process and, if

necessary, the special education IEP process. Students who received tier II or III RtI interventions were

assessed using the aimsweb assessments on a rolling basis.

The RSCP curriculum follows the Common Core State Standards (adopted by Wisconsin in

June 2010) for the subject areas of English/language arts (includes writing), math, science, social

studies, art, and music. The emphasis is placed on literacy and math. The school also provides

programming for students who do not speak English. The curriculum resources available to RSCP for

English/language arts include Scholastic leveled readers, the Six Traits of Writing, Lucy Calkins Units of

Study, Step Up to Writing, and the STEP literacy assessment. The math curriculum uses Singapore

Math. Science and social studies use a set of thematic units based on state standards developed using

a backward-mapping approach called Understanding by Design. Physical education, music, and art

are taught in “enrichment centers” under the direction of the classroom teachers. The school model is


based on three pillars: excellent teachers, personalized learning, and engaged parents. RSCP uses an

enhanced rotational school model, in which students rotate between literacy and math classrooms,

enrichment classes, and a learning lab.

Teachers continually assess student progress at the end of each lesson, but formal

reassessment occurs on an eight-week cycle. These data are used to adjust classroom instruction and

to identify students in need of more focused support to make adequate progress.

C. Student Population As of September 18, 2015, 430 students were enrolled in RSCP. A total of 10 students enrolled

after the school year started, and 23 students withdrew prior to the end of the year. Of the 23 students

who withdrew, 15 (65.2%) transferred to a different school, six (26.1%) transferred out of state, and

two (8.7%) moved out of the country.9 Of the 430 students who started the year at the school, 407

remained enrolled at the end of the year, representing a 94.7% retention rate.

At the end of the year, 417 students were enrolled in RSCP.

Most (395, or 94.7%) of the students were Hispanic, 12 (2.9%) were Caucasian, and

10 (2.4%) were African American. A majority of students were boys (223, or 53.5%) and 194 (46.5%) were girls.

Of the 61 (14.6%) students with special education needs, 24 (39.3%) had

speech/learning disabilities, 14 (23.0%) had other health impairments, nine (14.8%) had significant developmental delay, five (8.2%) had specific learning disabilities, four (6.6%) had cognitive disability, two (3.3%) had autism, one (1.6%) had intellectual disabilities, one (1.6%) had autism and other health impairments, and one (1.6%) had emotional/behavioral disorder.

More than half (271, or 65.0%) of the students were eligible for free lunch; the remaining students (146, or 35.0%) were eligible for paid lunch.

9 Four students withdrew from K4, two from K5, five from first grade, three from second grade, three from third grade, five from fourth grade, and one from fifth grade.


The largest grade level was first grade with 98 students (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Rocketship Southside Community PrepStudent Grade Level Enrollment*

2015–16

N = 417*At end of the school year.

4th 44 (10.6%)

3rd 38 (9.1%)

2nd 49 (11.8%)

1st 98 (23.5%)

K5 78 (18.7%)

K4 74 (17.7%)

5th36 (8.6%)

On the last day of the 2014–15 academic year, 367 RSCP students in K4 through fourth grade

were eligible for continued enrollment in 2015–16. Of those, 270 were enrolled on the third Friday in

September 2015, representing a return rate of 73.6%.

D. School Structure 1. Areas of Instruction

The subject areas of instruction focus on literacy (English/language arts, which includes

writing) and math. Science, physical education, art, and music are covered by enrichment center staff


under the guidance of the grade-level teachers. The school also provided programming for non-

English-speaking students.

2. Classrooms

At the beginning of the year, the school reported 18 classrooms plus the learning labs: three

K4 classrooms, three K5 rooms, four first-grade rooms, and two each of second, third, fourth, and fifth

grades. In addition to the classrooms, the building included a gymnasium; an art room; a special

education room; a computer lab; and various rooms for small-group intervention, administrative

offices, and meeting space.

At the beginning of the year, each classroom had approximately 22 to 30 students and one

teacher. The K4 classrooms shared an educational assistant. Teachers were assigned to groups of

students based on the subject matter, so either teachers or students would change rooms depending

on the subject matter being discussed.

3. Teacher Information

At the end of the 2014–15 school year, 14 instructional staff (nine classroom teachers and five

other instructional staff) were employed at the school and eligible to return in the fall of 2015.

Six (66.6%) of the nine teachers returned, and all five (100%) instructional staff returned. The overall

instructional staff return rate was 78.6%.

Throughout the 2015–16 school year, the school employed a total of 20 instructional staff. At

the beginning of the year, the school had 14 classroom teachers and six other instructional staff (three

integrated special education [ISE] teachers and three ISE paraprofessionals). Of the 14 classroom

teachers, 13 remained for the entire year for a teacher retention rate of 92.9%.10 All (100.0%) of the six

10 A first-grade English/language arts teacher moved to Michigan due to her father’s illness.


special education staff remained the entire year. The overall instructional staff retention rate was

95.0%.

An additional part-time integrated special education paraprofessional was hired on a

temporary basis in mid-February 2016. The first grade ELA teacher was replaced in November 2015.

The school contracted with the Cooperative Educational Service Agency (CESA) for the

services of a speech pathologist and a physical therapist. A second speech pathologist was contracted

through Milwaukee Bilingual Speech/Language Pathologists. All instructional staff in place at the end

of the school year held current Wisconsin DPI licenses or permits except for the first-grade

English/language arts teacher hired in November 2015.11

Throughout the year, in addition to instructional staff, the school employed five tutors and

three enrichment center coordinators,12 who helped with students in various capacities under the

direction of their teachers. The administrative staff at the school included a principal, two vice

principals, an office manager, and a business operations manager.

RSCP provided three weeks of full-day professional development for the staff prior to the

beginning of the school year from July 27 through August 14, 2015. The school provided a detailed

spreadsheet of the topics covered during these trainings, which included team building, overview of

the assessments, family vision, systems and routine rollout and planning, math strategies, home visit

calls/planning, and individualized special education. During the first week, the school held daily

meetings after dismissal to discuss specific start-of-school issues.

During the school year, the staff met two to three times per month from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m.

Following is the list of the topics covered with various staff members, provided by the school.

11 A replacement first-grade English/language arts teacher was hired on November 9, 2015. The DPI website indicates that she applied for a license on October 4, 2015. As of the date of this report, no license or permit was entered on the DPI website. 12 The enrichment center coordinators were responsible for instruction in art, music, physical education, and science in coordination with classroom teachers.


Using the clip chart as a behavior management tool

Read-aloud reading comprehension Social-emotional learning (SEL) Creating and analyzing math and language boards “Break it down” strategies Matching books to readers Planning and executing high-quality phonics lessons Academic enthusiasm Guided reading and math scope and sequence planning Data days: State of the school: SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats)

analysis for systems and routines

During the CRC interview process, teachers were asked about professional support. Eight of

the 10 teachers interviewed rated this area as “excellent” or “good” and two rated this area as “fair.“

Teachers also were asked about the performance review procedure. All 10 agreed or strongly agreed

that the school has a clear teacher performance assessment process. Nine were satisfied with the

school’s teacher performance assessment criteria, and all 10 agreed that student academic

performance is an important part of teacher assessment.

Parents were also asked about the school’s staff. A total of 93.0% of parents agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement “I am comfortable talking with the staff,” and 88.4% indicated that they

were satisfied with overall staff performance. Nearly all (91.2%) parents strongly agreed (60.5%) or

agreed (30.7%) that people in this school treat each other with respect.

Nearly all (21 of 25) of the fifth graders surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the teachers

help them to succeed in school. A total of 17 (68.0%) indicated that teachers respect students.


4. Hours of Instruction/School Calendar

The regular school day for all students began at 7:45 a.m. and ended at 4:15 p.m. with

staggered release times depending on grade levels. On Thursdays (minimum schedule days), students

were released between 1:30 and 2:15 p.m., depending on their grade levels.

The first day of school was August 17, 2015, and the last day of school was June 15, 2016.

The school provided the 2015–16 calendar to CRC.

5. Parent and Family Involvement13

During the registration process, parents are provided a contract that includes expectations for

parents, including meeting regularly with teachers, checking their child’s homework, participation in

school activities, and volunteering at least 30 hours (referred to as Parent Partnership Hours) per year

for the RSCP community.

In addition to the duties listed in the signed contract, parents are expected to participate in

their child’s learning in the following ways.14

Parent-student-teacher conferences: A parent must attend conferences with teachers

to review the student’s progress report and/or report card.

Exhibition nights: All parents are required to attend the scheduled exhibition nights. If parents cannot attend, a representative must attend in their place. During these meetings, parents have the opportunity to see student presentations and discover what their child has been learning for the past nine to 12 weeks.

Community meetings: All parents are invited and strongly encouraged to attend the

scheduled community meetings. Parent/family meetings: All parents are invited and strongly encouraged to attend the

scheduled parent/family meetings. These meetings are open to the entire family and typically take place on the weekends or on a weeknight.

13 Information from the 2015–16 RSCP Student/Parent Handbook (provided to parents in English or Spanish). 14 Written materials are provided in Spanish and several staff members speak Spanish to allow for full participation of parents whose primary language is Spanish.


Mandatory registration day: Before school begins each year, parents receive an invitation to a mandatory registration day. All parents must attend this event.

Parents and teachers were asked about parental involvement during the survey/interview

process. Nearly all (92.5%) of the parents surveyed indicated that they felt welcome at their child’s

school. When asked what they liked most about the school, responses included parent-teacher

communication and involvement. Nine of the 10 teachers who were interviewed agreed or strongly

agreed that the staff at this school encourage all families to become involved in school activities. Nine

also rated parent involvement at “excellent” (three) or “good” (six).

6. Waiting List

On September 1, 2015, the school reported that 10 to 20 students were waiting for admission

to the school. At the end-of-year interview on May 27, 2016, the school reported a waiting list of

approximately six students (four for fifth grade and two for K4) for next fall.

7. Disciplinary Policy

Policies related to discipline are outlined in the 2015–16 RSCP Student/Parent Handbook. RSCP

relies on proactive, preventive supports to promote positive behavior at school. The Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework is implemented at RSCP with the

fundamental purpose of creating learning environments that are more consistent, predictable,

positive, and safe. This is accomplished through:

Behavioral expectations that are clearly defined, taught, and reinforced; Systems for recognizing and reinforcing positive behaviors; Consequences that are clearly defined and consistently implemented; Data-based decision making; and Multi-tiered systems of support.


A key component of the PBIS approach at RSCP is the implementation of core social-emotional

learning (SEL) programming at all grade levels. The school uses the following two programs.

1. Kimochis Feelings (lower grades)

Kimochis Feelings for schools is an SEL program that helps students identify, communicate, and regulate feelings, as well as develop appropriate social skills. The program teaches skills through five characters: Cloud, Cat, Lovey Dove, Huggtopus, and Bug. Two central components of the Kimochis program are keys to communication (e.g., “Be brave and redo hurtful moments,” and “Assume the best”) and “kotowazas” (e.g., “It’s okay to be mad, but it’s not okay to be mean” and “Be brave enough to stand up and speak or brave enough to sit down and listen”).

2. The RULER Approach (upper grades) The RULER Approach is an SEL program that teaches social and emotional learning by teaching students to:

Recognize emotions in oneself and others;

Understand the causes and consequences of emotions;

Label the full range of emotions using a rich vocabulary;

Express emotions appropriately in different contexts; and

Regulate emotions effectively to foster healthy relationships and achieve

goals.

The RULER Approach uses four “anchors of emotional intelligence,” which include a class charter, mood meter, meta-moments, and blueprint.

RSCP classrooms also use a variety of management systems to communicate behavior (both

positive and negative) to students and families. The specific systems can vary by classroom, but

examples include color-coded card chart systems and “Class Dojo.” Families are notified daily of

student behavior (both positive and concerning) via home-school communication systems such as

logs, phone calls, and conferences.

In the event that RSCP’s proactive systems are ineffective and behavior infractions occur, the

school uses a progressive discipline system. Consequences range in severity based on the particular


behavior. Major infractions that threaten the safety or health of students, staff, or others may be cause

for immediate suspension or expulsion. Such infractions include the possession of weapons, threats,

use of a dangerous instrument, and possession or use of any illegal drugs. All consequences are at the

discretion of the school’s Human Rights Policy and Suspension/Expulsion Policy. RSCP considers

student disciplinary decisions a private matter.

This year, teachers and parents were asked about the discipline policy at the school. All 10 of

the teachers interviewed indicated discipline at the school as a “very important” or “somewhat

important” reason for continuing to teach there. Two teachers rated the school’s adherence to the

discipline policy as “excellent,” five as “good,” two as “fair,” and one as “poor.” Just over 83% of the

parents strongly agreed (49.3%) or agreed (34.0%) with the statement that they are comfortable with

how the staff handles discipline.

8. Activities for Continuous School Improvement

Following is a description of RSCP’s response to the activities recommended in the 2014–15

programmatic profile and educational performance report.

Recommendation: Continue small-group instruction for reading and math, including

tutoring and use of guided reading for small reading groups.

Response: The school continued this practice through this academic year. The leadership made an effort as a national network of schools to use professional development focused on this issue.

Recommendation: Implement a comprehensive writing program, including a

systematic method of collecting valid writing samples and the use of writing data to inform writing instruction and strategies. Recommendation: Continue the focus on vocabulary development for writing across the curriculum.

Response: Staff focused on writing across the curriculum by breaking the writing curriculum into scope and sequence maps. This helped to identify what each group needed by establishing a baseline and then teaching writing skills intentionally,


addressing the needs of each student. Vocabulary was emphasized using a craft-and-structure approach, conventions, and transition words. For the older students, staff emphasized understanding the different genres of writing. This resulted in a significant improvement in student writing skills.

Recommendation: Continue to implement the Response to Intervention and tutoring

for the lowest-achieving students. Response: The school continued to implement RtI. The internal tutoring program was improved and was more consistent with the RtI Tier II interventions.

Recommendation: Implement a social-emotional learning curriculum.

Response: To address SEL with students, the school implemented Kimochis for the lower graders, and the RULER Approach for the upper grades, which were described in the previous section.

After reviewing the information in this report and in consultation with the school’s leaders at

the end-of-year interview in May 2016, CRC recommends that RSCP focus on the following activities

for the 2016–17 school year.

Continue small-group instruction for reading and math, including tutoring and use of

guided reading for small reading groups.


Enhance the SEL curriculum by adding “community circles” at the beginning of every class to help increase communication throughout the school (at the student level, between students and staff, between staff members, and with families).

9. Fifth-Grade Graduation and Middle School Guidance Information

The school graduated 35 fifth graders in June 2016. The school developed a relationship with

the United Community Center’s Acosta Middle School, and 32 of the 35 students were planning to

attend Acosta; one student moved out of state. Staff at the school helped students and parents with

the transition.


III. EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

To monitor RSCP’s school performance, a variety of qualitative and quantitative information

was collected during the past academic year. At the beginning of the school year, RSCP established

goals related to attendance, parent participation, and special education student records. The school

also identified local and standardized measures of academic performance to monitor student

progress. The following section of the report describes the school’s success in meeting attendance,

conference, and special education data collection goals. It also describes student progress on local

measures in reading, math, and writing and on the required standardized tests.

A. Attendance CRC examined student attendance by calculating the average time students attended school.

The school considered a student present if he/she was at school for at least one hour of instruction in

any given half-day. RSCP set a goal that students would maintain an average daily attendance rate of

95.0% of all possible half-days. Attendance data were available for 440 students enrolled during the

year. Students attended, on average, 92.1% of the time, falling short of the goal.15 When excused

absences were included, the attendance rate rose to 95.9%. There were 16 students who received at

least one out-of-school suspension. These 16 students received between one and four total days of

suspension throughout the school year. The school did not use any in-school suspensions.

B. Parent Participation At the beginning of the academic year, the school set a goal that all parents of students

enrolled for the entire school year would attend at least two of the three scheduled parent-teacher

conferences. This year, 407 students were enrolled all year; parents of 359 (88.2%) of those students

15 Individual student attendance rates were calculated by dividing the total number of days present by the total number of days that the student was enrolled. Individual rates were then averaged across all students.


attended at least two of the three conferences, short of the school’s 100.0% conference attendance

goal.

C. Special Education Needs This year, the school set a goal to develop and maintain records for all special education

students. A total of 63 special education students were enrolled at RSCP during the school year. One of

these students was dismissed from special education services during the school year and six of these

students began special education services during the school year. IEPs were created or updated for all

56 students requiring one. In addition, CRC conducted a review of a representative number of files

during the year. This review showed that students had current evaluations indicating their eligibility

for special education services, that IEPs were reviewed in a timely manner, and that parents were

invited to develop and be involved in their child’s IEP.

D. Local Measures of Educational Performance Charter schools, by their definition and nature, are autonomous schools with curricula that

reflect each school’s individual philosophy, mission, and goals. In addition to administering

standardized tests, each charter school is responsible for describing goals and expectations for its

students in the context of that school’s unique approach to education. These goals and expectations

are established by each City of Milwaukee–chartered school at the beginning of the academic year to

measure the educational performance of its students. These local measures are useful for monitoring

and reporting progress, guiding and improving instruction, clearly expressing the expected quality of

student work, and providing evidence that students are meeting local benchmarks. The CSRC

expectation is that schools establish local measures in reading, writing, math, and special education.


In RSCP’s third year of operation, the school used two assessments to monitor student

progress in reading and math: the CPAA for K4 students and the MAP assessments for K5 through

fifth-grade students.

1. Reading and Math Progress for K4 Using CPAA

The CPAA is used to measure student skills in early literacy and math using multiple strands.

Literacy strands include listening, reading, phonics/writing, and phonemic awareness; math strands

include measurement, numeracy, and patterns/functions. Each strand is scored on a numeric scale

from 0 to 100 that is bracketed into four performance-level scores: below expectation, approaching

expectation, at expectation, and above expectation. These brackets shift each session to account for

the increasing difficulty of the assessment.16

a. Reading

RSCP set a goal this year that at least 90.0% of students who completed the initial baseline

assessment would achieve a scale score of 62 (at expectation) or higher on the spring assessment. Of

the 66 K4 students who took both the fall and spring CPAA reading assessments, 57 (86.4%) achieved

a scale score of 62 or higher on the spring assessment, falling short of the school’s goal.

b. Math

RSCP set a goal this year that at least 90.0% of students who completed the initial baseline

assessment would achieve a scale score of 62 (at expectation) or higher on the spring assessment. Of

the 66 K4 students who took both the fall and spring CPAA math assessments, 59 (89.4%) achieved a

scale score of 62 or higher on the spring assessment, falling short of the school’s goal.

16 Information retrieved from https://mapnebraska.wikispaces.com/file/view/new-features-dec-2013.pdf


2. Reading and Math Progress for K5 Through Fifth Graders Using MAP Target RIT Scores

MAP is a series of tests that measure student skills in reading, math, and language usage. The

test yields a Rasch unit (RIT) scale score that shows student understanding, regardless of grade level.

This allows easy comparison of student progress from the beginning of the year to the end of the year

and/or from one year to the next. Students who complete the MAP tests in reading and math in the

fall receive an overall score and a unique target RIT score, based on the student’s current grade and

fall test score, that the student should strive to meet on the spring test. This year, RSCP elected to

measure student progress in reading and math by examining the percentage of students who met

their target RIT scores on the spring tests. Specifically, the school’s local measure goal for MAP reading

and math results was that at least 65.0% of students who completed both the fall and spring reading

or math assessments would meet their target RIT score on the spring assessment.

a. Reading

The MAP reading assessment was administered to 319 students in both the fall and spring;

267 (83.7%) of those students met their target reading score on the spring of 2016 assessment,

exceeding the school’s goal (Table 1).

Table 1


Local Measures of Academic Progress: MAP Reading Assessment Target Reading Scores for K5 Through 5th-Grade Students

Grade N Met Target RIT Score in Spring of 2016

n %

K5 68 49 72.1%

1st 94 83 88.3%

2nd 45 34 75.6%

3rd 35 33 94.3%

4th 42 39 92.9%

5th 35 29 82.9%

Total 319 267 83.7%


b. Math

In both the fall and spring, 319 students completed the MAP math assessment; 221 (69.3%) of

those students met their target math score on the spring of 2016 assessment, exceeding the school’s

goal (Table 2).

Table 2


Local Measures of Academic Progress: MAP Math Assessment Target Math Scores for K5 Through 5th-Grade Students

Grade N Met Target RIT Score in Spring of 2016

n %

K5 70 53 75.7%

1st 93 65 69.9%

2nd 44 26 59.1%

3rd 35 23 65.7%

4th 42 37 88.1%

5th 35 17 48.6%

Total 319 221 69.3%

3. Writing

RSCP assessed student writing skills using a rubric aligned with the Lucy Calkins Units of Study.

Students completed writing samples in the fall and spring of the school year. The spring writing

assessment focused on narrative writing. Students could score 0 to 28 on the writing samples. The

school set the goal that at least 75.0% of students who completed a writing sample in the fall would

improve their writing score by five points or more on a second writing sample taken in the spring.


Of the 240 students who completed a writing sample in the fall of 2015, 232 also completed a

spring writing sample. Of these, 198 (85.3%) increased their writing score by five or more points on the

spring writing sample (Table 3). This exceeds the school’s internal goal.

Table 3


Local Measures of Academic Progress: Writing 2015–16

Grade N Met Writing Goal in Spring of 2016

n %

K5 71 66 93.0%

1st 36 35 97.2%

2nd 40 31 77.5%

3rd 30 22 73.3%

4th 24 16 66.7%

5th 31 28 90.3%

Total 232 198 85.3%

4. IEP Progress for Special Education Students

This year, the school set a goal that at least 80.0% of special education students enrolled for a

full year of IEP services would meet one or more of their individual IEP goals. The school assessed

progress at the annual review. During 2015–16, IEPs for 33 students had been implemented for a full

year at RSCP. Nearly every (29, or 87.9%) student met one or more of their IEP goals, exceeding the

school’s goal. Data on goal progress was missing for three (9.1%) students; these students are counted

in the analysis as not reaching any goals.

E. External Standardized Measures of Educational Performance

In 2015–16, DPI required that all schools administer Phonological Awareness Literacy

Screening (PALS) assessments to K4 through second graders, the Wisconsin Forward Exam to third


through eighth graders in reading and math, and the Forward Exam in science and social studies to

fourth and eighth graders. These tests and results are described in the following sections.

1. PALS

Beginning in 2014–15, DPI required that all students in K4 through second grade take the

PALS assessment in the fall and spring of the school year. PALS aligns with both the Common Core

English standards and the Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards.

The PALS assessment is available in three versions: PALS-PreK for K4 students, PALS-K for K5

students, and PALS 1–3 for first- through third-grade students.17 The PALS-PreK includes five required

tasks (name writing, uppercase alphabet recognition, beginning sound awareness, print and word

awareness, and rhyme awareness). Students complete two additional tasks (lowercase alphabet

recognition and letter sounds) only if they reach a high enough score on the uppercase alphabet task.

Finally, there is one optional task (nursery rhyme awareness) that schools can choose to administer or

not. Because this latter task is optional, CRC will not report data on nursery rhyme awareness.

The PALS-K includes six required tasks (rhyme awareness, beginning sound awareness,

alphabet knowledge, letter sounds, spelling, and concept of word) and one optional task (word

recognition in isolation). The PALS 1–3 comprises three required tasks (spelling, word recognition in

isolation, and oral reading in context). The PALS 1–3 also includes one additional required task for first

graders during the fall administration (letter sounds) and additional tasks for students who score

below the summed score benchmark. These additional tasks are used to gather further diagnostic

information about those students.

For the PALS-K and PALS 1–3, specific task scores are summed for an overall summed score.

For the PALS 1–3, the fall and spring summed scores are calculated using different task combinations.

17 Although the PALS 1–3 can be used for students in third grade, DPI only requires the test for K4 through second-grade students; third-grade students are tested using the Forward Exam.


The summed score is then compared to benchmarks set for each grade level and test administration.

Reaching or surpassing the benchmark is not an indicator that the student is reading at grade level;

the benchmark simply helps teachers identify which students may have difficulty learning to read. For

example, if the student’s summed score is below the designated benchmark for his/her grade level

and test administration, the student is identified as requiring additional instruction to master basic

literacy skills.18 Students who are at or above the benchmark have the basic skills required to, with

targeted instruction, continue learning to read without intervention. Teachers may use PALS

assessment results to help plan classroom reading and spelling instruction according to student

needs.

There is no similar summed score or set benchmarks for the PALS-PreK. Because students

enter K4 with different levels of exposure to books, letters, and sounds, the purpose of the PALS-PreK

is to learn students’ abilities as they enter K4 in the fall. In the spring, developmental ranges for each

PALS task indicate whether the student is at the expected developmental stage for a 4-year-old child.

a. PALS-PreK

A total of 75 K4 students completed the PALS-PreK in the fall, and 72 students completed the

spring assessment; 72 students completed both. Although the spring developmental ranges relate to

expected age-level development by the time of the spring semester, CRC applied the ranges to both

test administrations to see whether more students were at or above the range for each test by the

spring administration. The number of students at or above the developmental range increased for

each task from fall to spring (Table 4). By the time of the spring assessment, 70 (97.2%) K4 students

were at or above the developmental range for six or more tasks, and 68 (94.4%) were at or above the

range for all seven tasks (not shown).

18 Information retrieved from http://www.palswisconsin.info


Table 4

Rocketship Southside Community Prep PALS-PreK for K4 Students

Students at or Above the Spring Developmental Range 2015–16 (N = 72)

Task Fall Spring

n % n %

Name writing 53 73.6% 72 100.0%

Uppercase alphabet recognition 27 37.5% 70 97.2%

Lowercase alphabet recognition 22* 95.7% 70* 98.6%

Letter sounds 22* 95.7% 70* 98.6%

Beginning sound awareness 41 56.9% 72 100.0%

Print and word awareness 35 48.6% 72 100.0%

Rhyme awareness 29 40.3% 70 97.2%

*Out of 23 students who qualified to complete the lowercase and letter sound tasks in the fall. **Out of 71 students who qualified to complete the lowercase and letter sound tasks in the spring.

b. PALS-K and PALS 1–3

As mentioned above, each of these tests has a summed score benchmark for the fall and

spring (Table 5). The fall and spring summed score benchmarks are calculated using different task

combinations. Therefore, the spring benchmark may be lower than the fall benchmark. Additionally,

student benchmark status is only a measure of whether the student is where he/she should be

developmentally to continue becoming a successful reader; results from fall to spring should not be

used as a measure of individual student progress.

Table 5

PALS-K and PALS 1–3 Published Summed Score Benchmarks

PALS Assessment Fall Benchmark Spring Benchmark

PALS-K 28 81

PALS — 1st Grade 39 35

PALS — 2nd Grade 35 54


CRC first examined reading readiness for any student who completed the fall or spring tests.

For K5 students and first graders, a larger percentage of students who completed the fall test were at

the fall benchmark compared to the percentage of students who completed the spring test (Table 6).

Table 6


Reading Readiness for K5, 1st, and 2nd Graders Fall of 2015 and Spring of 2016

Grade Level and Test Period N

Students at or Above Benchmark

n %

K5

Fall 76 70 92.1%

Spring 78 66 84.6%

1st Grade

Fall 97 74 76.3%

Spring 98 59 60.2%

2nd Grade

Fall 48 26 54.2%

Spring 48 36 75.0%


Next, CRC looked at spring benchmark status for students who completed both the fall and

spring PALS: 74 K5 students, 94 first graders, and 45 second graders. At the time of the spring

assessment, 83.8% of K5 students, 59.6% of first graders, and 73.3% of second graders were at or

above the spring summed score benchmark for their grade level (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Rocketship Southside Community PrepSpring of 2016 Reading Readiness

Students With Fall and Spring PALS Scores

83.8%

59.6%73.3%

16.2%

40.4%26.7%

K5N = 74

1st GradeN = 94

2nd GradeN = 45

At or Above Benchmark Below Benchmark


2. Wisconsin Forward Exam for Third Through Eighth Graders19

In the spring of 2016, the Wisconsin Forward Exam replaced the Badger Exam and the

Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination as the state’s standardized test for English/language

arts and math for students in third through eighth grades, science for students in fourth and eighth

grades, and social studies for students in fourth, eighth, and tenth grades. The Forward Exam was

administered in the spring of the school year.20 The test is computerized but not adaptive based on

student responses. The Forward Exam was developed and administered by the Data Recognition

Center (DRC), a Minnesota-based company with a local office in Madison, Wisconsin. DRC will also be

responsible for reporting results.

The Forward Exam is a summative assessment that provides information about what students

know in each content area. Each student receives a score based on his/her performance in each

subject being tested. Scores are translated into one of four levels: advanced, proficient, basic, and

below basic.

A total of 116 third through fifth graders completed the English/language arts assessment and

115 students completed the math assessment in the spring of 2016. Of all students enrolled in the

school for the entire school year (i.e., third Friday of September until the Forward test in the spring),

29.3% were proficient or advanced in English/language arts and 43.5% were proficient or advanced in

math (not shown). Results by grade level are presented in figures 3 and 4.21

19 Information from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website (http://dpi.wi.gov/assessment/forward) and Wisconsin Forward Exam family brochure (http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/assessment/pdf/Forward%20brochure%20for%20families.pdf). 20 The Forward Exam testing window was March 28 to May 20, 2016. 21 This cohort of students differs from the cohort who were enrolled on the day of the assessment, which also includes students who enrolled during the school year. Among all 118 third through fifth graders enrolled on the day of the test, 28.8% were proficient or advanced in English/language arts and of all 117 students who took the math assessment, 42.7% were proficient or advanced in math.


Figure 3

Rocketship Southside Community PrepForward Exam English/Language Arts Assessment

2015–16

41.7%33.3%

25.7%

41.7%

33.3%37.1%

16.7%

24.4% 31.4%

8.9% 5.7%

3rd 4th 5th

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

N = 36 N = 44 N = 35

Figure 4

Rocketship Southside Community PrepForward Exam Math Assessment

2015–16

16.7% 18.2% 20.0%

50.0%29.5%

37.1%

33.3%

43.2% 31.4%

9.1% 11.4%

3rd 4th 5th


N = 36 N = 44 N =35


Among 45 fourth and eighth graders who completed the social studies test and 44 who

completed the science test, 26.7% were proficient or advanced in social studies and

25.0% were proficient or advanced in science (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Rocketship Southside Community PrepForward Exam Social Studies and Science Assessments

2015–16

36.4% 40.0%

38.6% 33.3%

18.2% 17.8%

6.8% 8.9%

4th 4th


Science Social StudiesN = 44 N = 45

F. Multiple-Year Student Progress

Year-to-year progress is measured by comparing scores on standardized tests from one year to

the next. Year-to-year progress/performance expectations apply to all students with scores in

consecutive years. In the fall of 2013, students in K4 through second grade began taking the PALS

reading assessment. The PALS summed score benchmark is intended to show teachers which students

require additional reading assistance—not to indicate whether the student is reading at grade level.


Additionally, there are three versions of the test (the PALS PreK, PALS, and PALS 1–3), which include

different formats, sections, and scoring. For these reasons, an examination of PALS results from one

test to another provides neither a valid nor a reliable measure of student progress. Therefore, CRC

examined results for students who were in the first grade in 2015 and second grade in 2016 who had

taken the PALS 1–3 in two consecutive years. The CSRC’s proposed performance expectation is that at

least 75.0% of students who were at or above the summed score benchmark in first grade will remain

at or above the summed score benchmark as second graders in the subsequent school year. This year,

year-to-year reading readiness will be used as baseline data to confirm that expectation.

Data regarding year-to-year academic achievement on the DPI standardized tests for third

through eighth graders are not available due to this being the first year of the Wisconsin Forward

Exam for third through eighth graders. Forward Exam results from 2015–16 will be used as baseline

data to measure student progress from 2015–16 to 2016–17; results will be available at that time.

1. Second-Grade Performance Based on PALS

A total of 36 students completed the PALS spring assessment in 2014–15 as first graders and

2015–16 as second graders; 20 of those students were at or above the spring summed score

benchmark as first graders. All 20 students remained at or above the summed score benchmark in the

spring of 2016 as second graders.

G. CSRC School Scorecard

In the 2009–10 school year, the CSRC piloted a scorecard for each school that it charters. The

pilot ran for three years and in the fall of 2012, the CSRC formally adopted the scorecard to help

monitor school performance. The scorecard includes multiple measures of student academic progress,

such as performance on standardized tests and local measures. It also includes point-in-time academic


achievement and engagement elements, such as attendance and student and teacher retention and

return. The score provides a summary indicator of school performance. The summary score is then

translated into a school status rating.

In 2014, the CSRC approved a new scoring system in order to make the scorecard percentages

more meaningful and provide schools with greater opportunities to exhibit improvement. The new

scoring system is based on the following scale.

A 93.4% – 100.0% C 73.3% – 76.5% A− 90.0% – 93.3% C− 70.0% – 73.2% B+ 86.6% – 89.9% D+ 66.6% – 69.9% B 83.3% – 86.5% D 63.3% – 66.5% B− 80.0% – 83.2% D− 60.0% – 63.2% C+ 76.6% – 79.9% F 0.0% – 59.9%

The percentage score is still translated into a school status level as in previous years, with small

changes to the status-level cut scores. The previous and newly adopted cut scores are shown in

Table 7.

Table 7

City of Milwaukee

Educational Performance Rating Scale for Charter Schools

School Status Total Scorecard Percentage

Prior to 2014 New Scale

High Performing/Exemplary 100.0% – 85.0% 83.3% – 100.0% (B to A)

Promising/Good 84.9% – 70.0% 70.0% – 83.2% (C− to B−)

Problematic/Struggling 69.9% – 55.0% 60.0% – 69.9% (D− to D+)

Poor/Failing 54.9% or less 0.0% – 59.9% (F)

The CSRC uses the score and rating to guide decisions regarding whether to accept a school’s

annual education performance and continue monitoring as usual and whether to recommend a

school for a five-year contract renewal at the end of its fourth year of operation under its current

contract. The CSRC’s expectation is that schools will achieve a rating of 70.0% (Promising/Good) or


more; if a school falls under 70.0%, the CSRC will carefully review the school’s performance and

determine whether a probationary plan should be developed.

RSCP scored 83.8% (B) this year, which places the school at the high-performing/exemplary

level. This compares with 74.0% on the 2014–15 scorecard. See Appendix D for school scorecard

information.

H. DPI School Report Card

At the time of this report, DPI has not published report cards for any schools for the 2015–16

school year.

I. Parent/Teacher/Student/Board Satisfaction Regarding Student Academic Progress

CRC surveyed 215 parents.

Nearly all (93%) parents agreed or strongly agreed that their child is learning what is

needed to succeed in later grades.

Just over 93% of parents indicated that staff keep them informed about their child’s academic performance.

Nearly all (95.3%) parents agreed or strongly agreed that they and their child clearly

understand the school’s academic expectations. Most (94%) parents rated the school’s overall contribution to their child’s learning as

“excellent” or “good.”

Of the 10 teachers interviewed: All rated their students’ academic progress as “excellent” (three) or “good” (seven);

All considered the educational methodology/curriculum approach at the school as

important reasons for continuing to teach at RSCP; and Three rated the program of instruction as “excellent,” six as “good,” and one as “fair.”


Of the 25 fifth graders surveyed, 22 agreed that their reading/writing skills had improved and

20 agreed that their math skills have improved.

Of the three board members interviewed, all agreed that: Students are making significant academic progress; The school is making progress toward becoming a high-performing school; and On a scale of good to excellent, the school rates as either excellent or good overall.

IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report covers the third year of RSCP’s operation as a City of Milwaukee charter school.

Based on results in this report and in consultation with school staff, CRC recommends that the school

continue a focused school improvement plan by engaging in the following activities for the 2016–17

academic year.

Continue small-group instruction for reading and math, including tutoring and use of

guided reading for small reading groups.


Enhance the SEL curriculum by adding “community circles” at the beginning of every class to help increase communication throughout the school (at the student level, between students and staff, between staff members, and with families).

The school has met all but one condition of its contract with the City of Milwaukee and

subsequent CSRC requirements. In addition, the school scored 83.8% on the CSRC scorecard. As a

result, CRC recommends that RSCP continue to receive regular, annual academic monitoring and

reporting.


Appendix A

Contract Compliance Chart

A1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Table A

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Overview of Compliance With Education-Related Contract Provisions

2015–16

Section of Contract

Education-Related Contract Provision

Report Reference

Page(s)

Contract Provision Met

or Not Met

Section B Description of educational program. pp. 2–5 Met

Section B Annual school calendar provided. p. 10 Met

Section C Educational methods. pp. 2–5 Met

Section D Administration of required standardized tests. pp. 20–28 Met

Section D Academic criterion #1: Maintain local measures in reading, math, writing, and IEP goals, showing pupil growth in demonstrating curricular goals.

pp. 16–20 Met

Section D and subsequent CSRC memos

Academic criterion #2: Year-to-year achievement measures. PALS year-to-year expectations for 2nd-grade students. Year-to-year results for 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders were not available this year.

p. 29 N/A

Met N/A

Section D and subsequent CSRC memos

Academic criterion #3: Year-to-year achievement measures. Progress for students below grade level or proficiency level was not available this year.

N/A

N/A

Section E Parental involvement. pp. 10–11 Met

Section F Instructional staff hold a DPI license or permit to teach. p. 8 Not Met*

Section I Maintain pupil database information for each pupil. pp. 5–6 Met

Section K Disciplinary procedures. pp. 11–13 Met

*A replacement first-grade English/language arts teacher was hired on November 9, 2015. The DPI website indicates that she applied for a license on October 4, 2015. As of the date of this report, no license or permit information was entered on the DPI website.


Appendix B

Student Learning Memorandum

B1

Student Learning Memorandum for Rocketship Southside Community Prep

To: Children’s Research Center and Charter School Review Committee From: Rocketship Southside Community Prep Re: Learning Memo for the 2015–16 Academic Year Date: October 19, 2015 Note: This memorandum of understanding includes the minimum measurable outcomes required by the City of Milwaukee Charter School Review Committee (CSRC) to monitor and report students’ academic progress. These outcomes have been defined by the leadership and/or staff at the school in consultation with staff from the Children’s Research Center (CRC) and the CSRC. The school will record student data in PowerSchool and/or Excel spreadsheets and provide the data to CRC, the educational monitoring agent contracted by the CSRC. Additionally, paper test printouts or data directly from the test publisher will be provided to CRC for all standardized tests. All required elements related to the outcomes below are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section of this memo. CRC requests electronic submission of year-end data on the fifth day following the last day of student attendance for the academic year, or June 22, 2016. Enrollment The school will record enrollment dates for every student. Upon admission, individual student information and actual enrollment date will be added to the school’s database. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Termination/Withdrawal The exit date and reason for every student leaving the school will be determined and recorded in the school’s database. Specific reasons for each expulsion are required for each student. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Attendance The school will maintain appropriate attendance records. The school will maintain an average daily attendance rate of 95% of all possible half-days. Students are required to be present for at least one hour of instruction in any given half-day to be considered present. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Parent/Guardian Participation Parents of students enrolled for the entire school year will participate in at least two of three scheduled parent-teacher conferences. Participation is defined as an in-person conference either at school or in the home. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section.

B2

Special Education Needs Students The school will maintain updated records on all students who received special education services at the school, including students who were evaluated but not eligible for services. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Academic Achievement: Local Measures Reading and Mathematics for K4 Students The Children’s Progress Academic Assessment will be used to measure mastery of reading and math strands. Students receive an overall scale score (0 to 100) with cutoffs for four levels (below expectation, approaching expectation, at expectation, and above expectation). They also receive strand scores. The literacy strands are listening, reading, phonics/writing, and phonemic awareness. The mathematics strands are measurement, numeracy, and patterns/functions. The goal for each test (i.e., reading and math) is that at least 90% of students who complete the initial baseline assessment by October 1, 2014, will achieve a scale score of 62 or higher (“at expectation”) on the spring assessment. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Reading and Mathematics for K5 Through Fifth Grades Students in K5 through fifth grades will complete the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) reading and math assessments in the fall and spring of the school year. Progress will be measured by examining the change in Rasch unit (RIT) scores from fall to spring. Specifically, CRC will examine whether each student met his/her target RIT score in reading and math at the time of the spring assessments. Target RIT scores are determined using the student’s current grade level and fall test score.

At least 65% of students who complete both the fall and spring reading assessments will meet their target RIT score at the time of the spring assessment; and

At least 65% of students who complete both the fall and spring math assessments will

meet their target RIT score at the time of the spring assessment. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Writing Students in K5 through fifth grades will complete a writing diagnostic no later than October 31, 2015. The writing diagnostic will be assessed using a rubric aligned with the Lucy Calkins writing units of study, which teachers will use as an instructional resource. At least 75% of students who complete the writing diagnostic in October will improve their writing score by at least 5 points (score range: 0 to 28) on an on-demand writing assessment given in April 2016. The spring writing assessment will focus on narrative writing. Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section.

B3

Individualized Education Program (IEP) Goals At least 80% of special education students will meet one or more of the goals defined in their IEPs at the time of their annual review after one full year of IEP at Rocketship Southside Community Prep (RSCS). Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Academic Achievement: Standardized Measures The Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) for K4 Through Second-Grade Students22 The PALS will be administered to all K4 through second-grade students in the fall and spring of each school year within the timeframe required by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI). Required data elements related to this outcome are described in the “Learning Memo Data Requirements” section. Year-to-Year Achievement:23

1. CRC will report results from the DPI-required standardized assessment. Data from 2015–16 will serve as baseline data for subsequent years. If possible, beginning in the 2016–17 school year, CRC also will report year-to-year progress for students who completed the assessment in consecutive school years at the same school. When year-to-year data are available, CSRC will set its expectations for student progress, and these expectations will be effective for all subsequent years.

2. Data from the 2015 spring PALS assessment will be used as baseline data. CSRC’s

expectation for students maintaining reading readiness is that at least 75% of students who were in first grade in the 2014–15 school year and met the summed score benchmark in the spring of 2015 will remain at or above the second-grade summed score benchmark in the spring of 2016.

22 Students who meet the summed score benchmark have achieved a level of minimum competency and can be expected to show growth given regular classroom literacy instruction. It does not guarantee that the student is at grade level. Information from http://www.palswisconsin.info 23 CSRC will not have year-to-year achievement measurements for students in K4 and K5.


Appendix C

Trend Information

C1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Table C1

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Student Enrollment and Retention

School Year

Number Enrolled at

Start of School Year

Number Enrolled

During Year

Number Withdrew

Number at End of School Year

Number and Rate Enrolled

for Entire School Year

2013–14 312 36 63 294 261 (83.7%)

2014–15 435 14 56 393 380 (87.4%)

2015–16 430 10 23 417 407 (94.7%)

Table C2


Student Return Rate

School Year Return Rate

2013–14* N/A

2014–15 82.0%

2015–16 73.6%

*2013–14 was the school’s first year of operation; therefore, student return rate is not applicable

Table C3

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Student Attendance

School Year %

2013–14 90.2%

2014–15 90.0%

2015–16 92.1%

Table C4


Parent Participation Rate

School Year %

2013–14 97.4%

2014–15 93.4%

2015–16 88.2%


Table C5

Rocketship Southside Community Prep CSRC Scorecard Score

School Year Scorecard Result

2013–14 73.9%

2014–15 74.0%

2015–16 83.8%

Table C6


Teacher Retention Rates

Teacher Type Number at

Beginning of School Year

Number Started After School Year

Began

Number Terminated

Employment During the

Year

Number at End of

School Year

Retention Rate: Rate

Employed at School for

Entire School Year

2013–14

Classroom Teachers Only 14 2 2 14 85.7%

All Instructional Staff 21 4 3 22 85.7%

2014–15



2015–16




Table C7

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Teacher Return Rates*

Teacher Type Number at End of Prior School Year

Number Returned at Beginning of Current

School Year Return Rate

2013–14*

Classroom Teachers Only N/A N/A N/A

All Instructional Staff N/A N/A N/A

2014–15

Classroom Teachers Only 10 8 80.0%

All Instructional Staff 15 11 73.3%

2015–16

Classroom Teachers Only 9 6 66.6%

All Instructional Staff 14 11 78.6%

*2013–14 was the school’s first year of operation; therefore, teacher/instructional staff return rate is not applicable.


Appendix D

CSRC 2015–16 School Scorecard

D1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

City of Milwaukee Charter School Review Committee School Scorecard r: 4/11

K5–8TH GRADE

STUDENT READING READINESS: GRADES 1–2 PALS—% 1st graders at or above spring

summed score benchmark this year (5.0)

10% PALS—% 2nd graders who maintained spring summed score benchmark two consecutive years

(5.0)

STUDENT ACADEMIC PROGRESS: GRADES 3–8 WKCE reading—% maintained

proficient and advanced (7.5)

35%

WKCE math—% maintained proficient and advanced

(7.5)

WKCE reading—% below proficient who progressed

(10.0)

WKCE math—% below proficient who progressed

(10.0)

LOCAL MEASURES

% met reading (3.75)

15% % met math (3.75)

% met writing (3.75)

% met special education (3.75)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: GRADES 3–8 WKCE reading—% proficient or

advanced (7.5)

15% WKCE math—% proficient or advanced (7.5)

ENGAGEMENT

Student attendance (5.0)

25% Student reenrollment (5.0) Student retention (5.0) Teacher retention (5.0) Teacher return* (5.0)

HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENT ACADEMIC PROGRESS: GRADES 9, 10, and 12 EXPLORE to Aspire—composite score at or above

benchmark on EXPLORE and at or above benchmark on the Aspire

(5.0)

30% EXPLORE to Aspire—composite score of below

benchmark on EXPLORE but increased 1 or more Aspire

(10.0)

Adequate credits to move from 9th to 10th grade (5.0)

Adequate credits to move from 10th to 11th grade (5.0)

DPI graduation rate (5.0)

POSTSECONDARY READINESS: GRADES 11 and 12 Postsecondary acceptance for graduates (college,

university, technical school, military) (10)

15% % of 11th/12th graders tested (2.5) % of graduates with ACT composite score of 21.25 or

more (2.5)

LOCAL MEASURES % met reading (3.75)

15% % met math (3.75) % met writing (3.75) % met special education (3.75)

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: GRADE 10

WKCE reading—% proficient and advanced (7.5) 15%

WKCE math—% proficient and advanced (7.5)

ENGAGEMENT Student attendance (5.0)

25% Student reenrollment (5.0) Student retention (5.0) Teacher retention (5.0) Teacher return* (5.0)

*Teachers not offered continuing contracts are excluded when calculating this rate. Note: If a school has fewer than 10 students in any cell on this scorecard, CRC does not report these data. This practice was adopted to protect student identity. Therefore, these cells will be reported as not available (N/A) on the scorecard. The total score will be calculated to reflect each school’s denominator.

D2 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Table D

Charter School Review Committee Scorecard Rocketship Southside Community Prep

2015–16 School Year

Area Measure Max. Points

% Total Score Performance Points

Earned

Student Reading Readiness: 1st – 2nd Grades24

% 1st graders at or above spring summed score benchmark this

year 5.0

10.0%

60.2% 3.0

—% 2nd graders who maintained spring summed

score benchmark two consecutive years

5.0 100.0% 5.0

Student Academic Progress: 3rd – 8th Grades

WKCE reading: % maintained proficient and advanced 7.5

35.0%

N/A N/A

WKCE math: % maintained proficient and advanced 7.5 N/A N/A

WKCE reading: % below proficient who progressed 10 N/A N/A

WKCE math: % below proficient who progressed 10 N/A N/A

Local Measures

% met reading 3.75

15.0%

83.7% 3.1

% met math 3.75 69.3% 2.6

% met writing 3.75 85.3% 3.2

% met special education 3.75 87.9% 3.3

Student Achievement: 3rd – 8th Grades

WKCE reading: % proficient or advanced 7.5

15.0% N/A N/A

WKCE math: % proficient or advanced 7.5 N/A N/A

Engagement*

Student attendance 5.0

25.0%

92.1% 4.6

Student reenrollment 5.0 73.6% 3.7

Student retention 5.0 94.7% 4.7

Teacher retention rate 5.0 95.0% 4.8

Teacher return rate 5.0 78.6% 3.9

TOTAL 5025 41.9

K5–8TH GRADE SCORECARD PERCENTAGE 83.8%

*Teacher retention and return rates reflect all eligible instructional staff (classroom teachers plus other instructional staff).

24 Includes students who completed both the fall and spring PALS. 25 The WKCE reading and math tests were discontinued for the 2014–15 school year. Therefore, current and year-to-year results are not available. The maximum points possible for the WKCE scorecard measures were subtracted from the total possible points. The scorecard percentage was calculated by dividing the number of points earned by the modified denominator.


Appendix E

Teacher Interview Results

E1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

In the spring of 2016, CRC interviewed 10 teachers regarding their reasons for teaching and overall satisfaction with the school. Interviews included two teachers from K4 through fifth grades, three math teachers, four English/language arts teachers, and a special education teacher. The teachers interviewed had been teaching for an average of 3.1 years. The number of years teaching at RSCP ranged from one to three years. All (100.0%) teachers rated the school’s overall progress in contributing to students’ academic progress as excellent or good. All teachers also agreed or strongly agreed that the school has clear teacher performance assessment processes and that student academic performance is an important part of teacher assessment. Most (90.0%) teachers indicated satisfaction with the performance assessment criteria (Table E1).

Table E1

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Teacher/Instruction Staff Assessment

2015–16 (N = 10)

Question Frequency

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No Response

The school has a clear teacher performance assessment process 6 4 0 0 0 0

I am satisfied with my school’s teacher performance assessment criteria 3 6 1 0 0 0

Student academic performance is an important part of teacher assessment 5 5 0 0 0 0

Most (90.0%) teachers agreed or strongly agreed that adults who work in the school respect students and their different points of view and that staff encourage all families to become involved in school activities (Table E2).

Table E2

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Staff Assessment School Climate

2015–16 (N = 10)

Question Frequency

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree No

Response Adults who work in this school respect students and their different points of view

5 4 1 0 0 0

Staff at this school typically work well with on another

0 8 2 0 0 0

Staff at this school encourage all families to become involved in school activities

7 2 0 0 0 1


All teachers indicated that educational methodology, discipline, atmosphere, administrative leadership, and colleagues were important reasons to continue teaching at RSCP (Table E3).

Table E3

Reasons for Continuing to Teach at Rocketship Southside Community Prep 2015–16 (N = 10)

Reason Importance

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Somewhat Unimportant

Not at All Important

Financial considerations 3 6 1 0

Educational methodology/ curriculum approach

7 3 0 0

Age/grade level of students 6 3 0 1

Discipline 4 6 0 0

General atmosphere 8 2 0 0

Class size 3 3 3 1

Administrative leadership 8 2 0 0

Colleagues 5 5 0 0

Students 6 3 1 0

CRC asked teachers to rate the school’s performance related to class size, materials and equipment, student assessment plan, shared leadership, professional support and development, and the school’s progress toward becoming an excellent school. Teachers most often rated students’ academic progress, their performance as a teacher, the program of instruction, progress toward becoming a high-performing school, and parent involvement as good or excellent (Table E4).


Table E4

Rocketship Southside Community Prep School Performance Rating

2015–16 (N = 10)

Area Rating

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Class size/student-teacher ratio 2 2 4 2

Program of instruction 3 6 1 0

Shared leadership, decision making, and accountability 1 5 4 0

Professional support 2 6 2 0

Progress toward becoming a high-performing school 5 3 2 0

Your students’ academic progress 3 7 0 0

Adherence to discipline policy 2 5 2 1

Instructional support 2 4 4 0

Parent/teacher relationships 4 5 1 0

Teacher collaboration to plan learning experiences 1 5 4 0

Parent involvement 3 6 1 0

Your performance as a teacher 2 8 0 0

Administrative staff’s performance 4 3 3 0

When asked what they like most about the school, teachers said:

Support for teachers; School atmosphere; High expectations for students; and Relationships with staff, teachers, and the community.

When asked what they like least about the school, teachers said:

Student-teacher ratio; Workload; Curriculum and data overriding teacher discretion; and Disconnect between the national Rocketship organization and the local school.

An additional comment was that teacher and parent commitment and involvement stands out.


Appendix F

Parent Survey Results

F1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Parent opinions are qualitative in nature and provide a valuable measurement of school performance. To determine parental satisfaction/involvement with and an overall evaluation of the school, each school distributed paper surveys during spring parent-teacher conferences and offered the ability to complete the survey online. CRC made at least two follow-up phone calls to parents who had not completed a survey. If these parents were available and willing, CRC completed the survey over the phone. There were 215 surveys completed and submitted to CRC, representing 211 (63.9%) of 330 RSCP families. Most parents either agreed or strongly agreed that they clearly understand the school’s academic expectations (95.3%), are kept informed of their child’s academic performance by staff (93.4%), are comfortable talking with staff (93.0%), their children feel safe in school (93.0%), and their children are learning what is needed to succeed in later grades or after high school graduation (93.0%) (Table F1).

Table F1

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Parent Satisfaction With School

2015–16 (N = 215)

Factor

Response Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

No Response

n % n % n % n % n % n %

I am comfortable talking with the staff 129 60.0% 71 33.0% 10 4.7% 3 1.4% 2 0.9% 0 0.0%

The staff keep me informed about my child’s academic performance 125 58.1% 76 35.3% 10 4.7% 2 0.9% 2 0.9% 0 0.0%

I am comfortable with how the staff handles discipline 106 49.3% 73 34.0% 27 12.6% 3 1.4% 4 1.9% 2 0.9%

I am satisfied with the overall performance of the staff 115 53.5% 75 34.9% 16 7.4% 5 2.3% 1 0.5% 3 1.4%

The staff recognize my child’s strengths and weaknesses 108 50.2% 90 41.9% 10 4.7% 3 1.4% 2 0.9% 2 0.9%

I feel welcome at my child’s school 140 65.1% 59 27.4% 6 2.8% 2 0.9% 1 0.5% 7 3.3%

The staff respond to my worries and concerns 123 57.2% 70 32.6% 12 5.6% 4 1.9% 3 1.4% 3 1.4%

My child and I clearly understand the school’s academic expectations 122 56.7% 83 38.6% 5 2.3% 1 0.5% 2 0.9% 2 0.9%

My child is learning what is needed to succeed in later grades or after high school graduation

131 60.9% 69 32.1% 10 4.7% 2 0.9% 2 0.9% 1 0.5%

My child is safe in school 126 58.6% 74 34.4% 9 4.2% 0 0.0% 3 1.4% 3 1.4%

People in this school treat each other with respect 130 60.5% 66 30.7% 13 6.0% 2 0.9% 2 0.9% 2 0.9%

The school offers a variety of courses and afterschool activities to keep my child interested

78 36.3% 72 33.5% 43 20.0% 17 7.9% 3 1.4% 2 0.9%


The second measure examined the extent to which parents engaged in educational activities while at home. During a typical week, most or many parents worked on homework with their child (88.%); read to or with their child (80.9%); work on arithmetic or math (72.6%); participated in activities such as sports, library visits, or museum visits with their child (65.1%); and/or encouraged the use of phones, tablets, or computers for learning (62.3%; Table F2).

Table F2

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Parent Participation in Activities

K4–5th Grade 2015–16 (N = 215)

Activity

Response

Never Monthly Weekly No Response

n % N % n % n %

Read with or to your child(ren) 8 3.7% 28 13.0% 174 80.9% 5 2.3%

Encourage the use of phones, tablets, or computers for learning

26 12.1% 42 19.5% 134 62.3% 13 6.0%

Work on arithmetic or math 11 5.1% 38 17.7% 156 72.6% 10 4.7%

Work on homework 3 1.4% 10 4.7% 191 88.8% 11 5.1%

Participate together in activities outside of school

21 9.8% 48 22.3% 140 65.1% 6 2.8%

Parental satisfaction was also evident in the following results.

Almost all (94.0%) parents would recommend this school to other parents. The majority (85.2%) of parents will send their child to the school next year. A total of

13 (6.0%) parents said they will not send their child to the school next year, and 15 (7.0%) were not sure. Two parents did not respond.

A majority (94.0%) of parents rated the school’s overall contribution to their child’s

learning as excellent or good. Some (2.8%) parents rated the school’s contribution as fair. Seven parents did not respond to the question.

Parents indicated that they most liked the following about RSCP.

Teachers’ dedication, patience, respect, and individualized attention, given to all students.

Parent-teacher communication and involvement.

The discipline.


Parents said they liked the following things least.

The food. Homework load. Lack of extracurricular activities/programs. Dismissal/pick-up schedule/parking/lack of transportation.


Appendix G

Student Survey Results

G1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

At the end of the school year, 25 fifth graders completed an online survey regarding their school. Responses were generally positive.

Most (84.0%) students said they had improved their reading ability; 80.0% said that their math abilities had also improved.

Most (84.0%) students said that teachers help them succeed in school.

Most (76.0%) students indicated the school had afterschool activities. Most (76.0%) students said the marks they get on classwork homework and report

cards are fair (Table G).

Table G

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Student Survey

2015–16 (N = 25)

Question

Answer

Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

No Response

I like my school. 5 6 9 5 0 0

My reading/writing skills have improved. 10 11 4 0 0 0

My math skills have improved. 11 9 2 3 0 0

I regularly use computers/tablets in my school work.

7 5 10 0 3 0

The school rules are fair. 2 11 9 2 1 0

The teachers at my school help me to succeed in school. 8 13 4 0 0 0

I like being in school. 5 6 7 4 2 1

I feel safe in school. 5 8 9 3 0 0

The marks I get on classwork, homework, and report cards are fair. 9 10 5 1 0 0

My school has afterschool activities. 8 11 3 0 3 0

My teachers talk with me about high school plans. 5 5 5 5 5 0

Students at my school respect each other and their different points of view.

4 2 11 5 3 0

Teachers at my school respect students. 7 10 8 0 0 0

Teachers at my school respect students’ different points of view. 7 8 8 2 0 0

G2 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

When asked what they liked best about the school, students said:

Recess; Gym class; Good teachers; and Extracurricular activities.

When asked what they liked least, students said:

Amount of homework; Substitute teachers; and Zone 0.


Appendix H

Board Interview Results

H1 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

Board member opinions are qualitative in nature and provide valuable, although subjective, insight regarding school performance and organizational competency. RSCP’s board of directors consists of three members, all of whom were interviewed. The board members have served on the board for an average of just over two years. The backgrounds of the board members include education, academic committees, teaching programs, law, and for-profit organization leadership. Two board members said they participate in strategic planning for the school. All three received a presentation on the school’s annual academic performance report, received and approved the school’s annual budget, and reviewed the school’s annual financial audit. All three members reported that the board uses data to make decisions regarding the school. On a scale of poor to excellent, all three board members rated the school as good or excellent overall. Interview results appear in Table H.

Table H

Rocketship Southside Community Prep Board Member Interview Results

2015–16 (N = 3)

Performance Measure Response

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree Teacher-student ratio/class size at this school is appropriate. 2 1 0 0 0

Program of instruction (includes curriculum, equipment, and building) is consistent with the school’s mission.

2 1 0 0 0

Students make significant academic progress at this school. 3 0 0 0 0

The administrator’s financial management is transparent and efficient.

2 1 0 0 0

This school is making progress toward becoming a high-performing school. 3 0 0 0 0

This school has strong linkages to the community, including businesses. 2 1 0 0 0

The administrative staff’s performance meets the board’s expectations. 2 1 0 0 0

The majority of the board of directors take their varied responsibilities seriously.

2 1 0 0 0

This school has the financial resources to fulfill its mission. 1 1 1 0 0

The environment of this school ensures the safety of its students and staff. 2 1 0 0 0

H2 © 2016 by NCCD, All Rights Reserved

When asked what they liked most about the school, the board members mentioned the following:

Students’ academic gains; Curriculum model that shrinks the achievement gap; Parent engagement; and Part of a strong national network.

Regarding things they like least, the board members mentioned:

Hard to attract students to enroll; Lack of flexibility in the decision-making process; and Lack of culturally conscious curriculum.

When asked for one suggestion for improving the school, board members said:

Increase financial contributions; and Open another school to spread the learning model.

Additional comments included that the educational community should be more transparent in helping parents choose the right school for their child and that all schools should be supported.

Documents

2015–2016 Programmatic Profile and Educational …...This is the third annual report on the operation of Rocketship Southside Community Prep (RSCP), a City of Milwaukee charter school.1